tv [untitled] February 17, 2014 9:30am-10:01am PST
to decide whether that legislation itself will affect the resources. in this particular case the call was simply it doesn't flaet affect the mechanism in the code that's proposed it can't affect the resources that's why we choose it. there are many pieces of legislation that come to the planning commission and before the board and so there are many pieces of legislation that come in some fashion be argued sort of indirectly affect the resources. because this specifically says by definition you can't use the mechanism if it affects the resources so in our
interpretation it doesn't require the city attorney to make this call. we have to make in call every time >> thank you commissioner johns. >> excuse me. city attorney wishes to responded. >> city attorney. i agree with the interpretation that's put forth but if the commission would like to hear the legislation actually just to clarify the comments before i want to say this ordinance that is before us will effect the resources prior to page by the border there's no requirement in the charter you have to consider the legislation today. the board is not going to consider this it's credit card
by the planning commission tomorrow but the historic sequa analysis differs as part of the package because under sequa you consider the whole package so it's credit card under the sequa analysis >> thank you commissioner johns. >> okay. after listening to what you said and mr. ram said it seems like this is now putting on the lawyers hat that historic resources are unquestionably excluded under the lengths it didn't offend me at all it didn't take away from our jurisdiction or anything that we are doing. if it were worded differently it would be a different matter but it so specifically does not apply to historic resources i
have no problem with it >> thank you. commissioner johnck >> well, i basically agree with you commissioner johns. i don't think this ordinance i would have been interested to consider this but it's not necessary for this purpose to hear it today. and i don't disagree that the fountain is a historic resource and the developers have treated it appropriately in the new design. we need to think about the fountain as a historic resource. it's important that commissioner matsuda recommended that due care and attention be given to the points about the family being involved and that kind of thing. i will bring up the madam chair you didn't mention the madam
chair. i think it's important whether to move that i don't know from an architecture point of view where it should be and if the madam chair is the end all of the fountain but i think it's very important for the public to be aware of the value of that resource >> commissioner pearlman before i call on you i will say that the comment on the madam chair to add a brazil madam chair for the core sense of the fountain. >> in response defined the historic resource here so that's part of the discussion technically is the fountain is a historic resource. i mean has it been determined to be a historic resource. i thought see. so my question is obviously the building isn't it's not considered contributing to the district and it's only 35 e.r.
40 years old so if it does affect the historic resource i mean in terms of making the judgment the fountain is in the process t is this something we should be considering. that's role to the department. and i would say to what scale and a exactly i think it's been handled properly and moving it ten feet is not a big deal it's still meeting all the requirements i'm saying technically with the law >> commissioners the sequa analysis of the project stated that the fountain is an individual historic resource and appendix to that was the historic resource evaluation
response which also cites you is to the report analyzing the fountain as an individual resource and finding that the moving it and the placement would not be a significant impact under sequa. >> so any other comments sorry. mr. freeway >> tim freeway is your question whether or not the h pc has review authority and no, no it was a technical question. it feels like everything leads to a lawsuit. and if we are talking about whether this should the legislation should come to the h pc because of a historic resource present and the department is a saying it's not
but then again, it talks about the affect on this historic resource and it's obviously a less than affect we're walking this very, very fine thread of what's appropriate to be here relative to the 4.130 section >> again, i think also to follow up on director rams comments is the aside from the legislation was it states apples commitment to make sure that the fountain be taking care of appropriately mitigates the impact that's why it's category lee equally acceptable. if the commission wants 80 take action it's completely in our purview to act about involving
the family more and having a stabilization and relocation plan >> what we have before us. >> exactly. >> and it still seems liquor it a less impact whether or not they're involved. >> okay. any other comments and i just wanted to suggest that you under the historic resources responded on page 4 it doesn't include love information that i think should be considered so under criteria one i believe that the fountain should be considered under this criteria because this fountain
was created with over 2 hundred school kids and i i think one hundred and 50 form people who live here in san francisco. it was probably one of the first grass rots projects that of created in a public space that's very san francisco very 1970s. you should add something to that and criteria 2 ruth is a pretty white light known figure go to her website and see her pieces of work start at $150,000. this needs to be considered when you consider the individual. and what i can lend to you or give you a copy there was actually a 49 page booklet and it was called ruth for the san
francisco foundation. that could give you a lot more historical context to the fountain >> if i could just somewhere commissioners you have a comment. >> i want to make a motion. >> my comment would be if we're rode to make a motion the only over residing issue is the section 134. we can take it up so commissioner johns. i do think that the offer arching at home is the compatibility of the district but when it comes down to our. view and a today, i think the word elegant was used the big e word and in keeping with the
evolving tradition of union square as a major retail and a park setting and continual branding for more than over one hundred years. i'll add conditions related, however, commissioner matsuda or someone want to amend the months ago to include conditions to the fountain >> i want to add a friendly amendment to ask that the plan work closely with our family and they've agreed to work with pager and a turning balance and be sensitive to the context of the fountain and a bring back to planning a specific plan about how that's going to be. this was first applying do and
now it's a delicate project when you touch it up at all it should be removed as a whole. it's important that you see a very much more than what we see today a very clear complex sensitive plan about how it's going to be taken apart or removed and stored and put back together >> we'll say the family gets involved. >> i'll second the motion as amended. i'd like to add an amendment >> i want to make one quick comment about the evolving nature of any city we're looking at the moore store he would have to get a variance there would be a lot of things that are not
compatible but those are buildings that get cherished in the future. my amendment would be the 6 bay design hi >> that will be in observer draft motion. >> the draft most. >> for the 6 bays. >> right no amendment. sorry. i remove that >> it's the staff recommendations. correct >> so we want to reread that - >> i saw a fountain i don't remember where i read this is there any stipulation we can put on i think there is a question about who is responsible i know the answer is the project sponsor is having is there any
economic. >> the permit won't go forward. >> right but could we put a bond on the fountain? >> well, there's no way this can be redone. >> right. i'm afraid it will get lost mar make sure it doesn't get lost >> basically, it's all one piece and it bonds together it looks like you're going to pick it up. >> commissioner hyland the last time i'm aware of a major project building was approved with the stipulation that it certain parts of it be take care of it was the yes, ma'am porm
and that ended up costing the project several millions of dollars. >> that was retroactive. >> it took a lawsuit. is there that any chance? >> we have a motion on the floor if we could reread or rope the friendly amendments please. >> , of course, commissioners there's a motion and second on the floor that was amended for the sponsor to work closely with the family and work sneflly with the fountain to have a sensitive plan for the movement and it's restorati restoration. submitted >> oh, absolutely to the
department. >> shall i call the question? >> you mean the roll. >> yes. >> on that motion then commissioners commissioner hyland. ass >> as much as i like the construction. >> commissioner matsuda. i'm going to say yes, but i have a concern about the legislation >> commissioner pearlman. >> i've been fretting over this for days and days i'll vote yes. >> commissioner wolfram and president hasz. so moved, commissioners, that passes 6 to one with commissioner hyland voting against. commissioners that places you on item 10 for case 2013 at 845
montgomery street for certificate of appropriateness. if people who are leaving thegr. >> commissioner. you left off open your regular calendar for case 2013 at 845 montgomery street request for a certificate of appropriate. good afternoon, commissioners. kelly department staff. the project before you is a request for the certificate of appropriateness for 845 montgomery street a building within the jackson square project of the planning code. it was constricted in 1910 and
historically is known also the hotel ervin is a georgia style brick building with windows on the second and third floors and contrary front on the federal reserve. it was constructed in 23408 the penthouse and cultivated in toil. the proposed project is for the jelling restoration and the recladding of the two story addition sporadic it includes the cleaning and putting a bring on the montgomery facade and the light walls and the rehabilitation of the would do windows and painting the walls and cleaning and painting the anniversary historic stole and
planning i painting the gaud rails and in kind replacement of floor tiles and decks and revolver and in kind of stabilization of railing and new flashing and many replacement of existing plate tile with the 23408 edition with the new compatible toil in a muted tile measuring 12 inch by 24 inch laying in a pattern in that finish to simulate nature stone. based on the spivengz and a correspondence with the design team it meets the standard for rehabilitation and proportions for article 10 for the following
reasons. the proposal will address the requirements and in the 2008 addition for the proposal respects the character and a designing features and the landmark district. the architecture features of the building will be maintained and that replacement materials will not affect the overall this and the materials will match the material in design and texture and all new materials for the 2008 addition will be deafened as contrary all the rationed. based on those finding the department recommends approval of the project with the two
issues. prior an example of the proposed combrout will be forwarded for review and approval by the planning department preservation staff and the mentioned elevations showing the new partner will be forwarded and approved by the preservation staff. the department received no public inquires for general information about the project. i have just been informed today that the project sponsor would liquor to discuss the possibility of a different tile selection as part of the department we feel support the selected toil within our project sponsor toil that is the lighter color may hazed important compatibility with the existing landmark district which is much
more muted tune, you know, stone or a masonry attach material. i'll let the project architect who is here to prepare a short presentation review some of the details on the work as well as present to you some of the changes we have not had a chance to review. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm the project architect. we are addressing problems that were caused by construction defect. the new part of the building was clad with a slate toil which is a natural stone and i believe it
compatible with the general colors within the historic district. the problem is the slate contra covert we're forced to remove it and place a tile that minimum ice cream the slate. we've had a person who helped us and said a material that minimum ikdz the slate is not acceptable so we're trying to find something pits agreeable to the owners. the owners want something that matches what they already have on the building. the building is we documented it's obey in movies and the accent color on the building went from light to dark gray.
some of the colors are still there the dark gray is close to the color of the slate that the owners went to go back with a porcelain but we having had historically a lighter gray. instead of a bacon color to go with the light or dark gray and also this matches the building historically. we have samples of the toil including the toil hates suggested by planning. >> this is the toil suggested by planning it's in your packet. >> it's actively any questions ice cream what's on the montgomery street facade. and a could you hold up think
the first one you had from planning >> it had shades the light gray and the bailgz. >> can i ask a question. so the brown one is the one requested by the department and what's the gray one? >> either. >> either of those would be acceptable. okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> and that's the end of the presentation. >> yes. thank you. >> all right. commissions any questions. >> i actually have a question. so this was built in 2000.
>> 2008. >> and the citywide was approved at that time. >> i specifically remember this one. this is beyond a secondary facade it sits so far back you have to roll look for it to see that interest so my recollections there's no issues to cabin with with discolortion we were happy just to see the building >> it was only brought before the commission this time around because of the change in the material and anything that is secondary materials there's stone tile vs. porcelain toil that's the reason it's brought before you. >> thank you. any other questions from commissioners?
okay. we'll open up comment? any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. back to you, commissioners. commissioner pearlman >> you know i don't see any reason why the color is even an issue here. if it can't be seen from the street the owner should have some say and the light brown and gray are so close in terms of reflexion and light in the area duo i don't see where we should interfere with something donates not visible at all and at least let the owner do something and why not let me let them rope that >> i'll comment it is slightly be visible but it's so far back and it's a better alternative in
color. uncommon >> i agree with commissioner. >> it's technically visible from the right-of-way. >> commissioners. commissioner johnck >> i move approval of the staff recommendations but agree the owner should choose the color. >> i actually have a comment i don't like the dark gray i'd be fine with the light gray it's visual from the street. >> okay light gray (laughter). >> for staff recommendation whichever. >> do we have a second.
commissioners there's a moved and seconded to approve the light gray option or the original staff recommendation. on that motion commissioner hyland. commissioner johnck. commissioner johns. commissioner matsuda. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and president hasz. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 11 for case 1115 >> pardon me i need a recustodials. >> i make a motion for a recustodials. >> you can recuse yourself. item 11 the union iron works i believe there's a requester inform a recall
>> i make a motion to recuse commissioner hyland. commissioner hyland. commissioner johnck. commissioner johns. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and a president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes commissioner hyland is so recused. >> good afternoon, commissioners department staff. the project before you is a nomination of the national historic register it was perpetrate for the port of san francisco. in its capacity as a certified local government the city and county of san francisco is give the authority to comment on the commission and it will be forwarded to the commission of the office of historic presently. it's a